Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Monarch vs. Fullfield II |
Post Reply |
Author | |
jason miller
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/05/2007 Location: W Laf, IN Status: Offline Points: 229 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: February/05/2007 at 22:57 |
I just got a Stevens 200 in .243, and it will be mainly a coyote gun, with the possibility of some deer hunting in the future. I'd like to put a nice scope on it, and I'm looking at the Monarch 3-9x40 or the Burris FFII 3-9x40. I've always thought the Nikon was a good deal, back when they were around $300. This looks like a good chance to pick one up, but the Burris looks like a good scope too, and is noticeably cheaper than the Nikon. Both scopes boast 95% light transmission, weather-proofness, and lifetime warranties. First question: Is the Monarch worth the extra money? I know you can find the FFII for $170ish, that's fifty bucks difference... Second question: If the Nikon is worth the money, should I get the BDC reticle since it's the same price? I've looked through one at a local store, and it seemed like another one of those things where it might be better to just keep things simple. Also, I don't have a rangefinder, and probably won't be buying one. Finally, does anyone know if the Burris is also made overseas? If it happens to be domestic, I might be swayed in that direction. I know they're based in Colorado... Anyway, thanks in advance for any and all help.
|
|
rootmanslim
Optics Professional Joined: June/04/2006 Location: Pinedale, WY Status: Offline Points: 557 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
No contest. I own both and the Monarch is better.The FF is a $199 scope the Monarch WAS a lot more. You get what you pay for.
|
|
jonbravado
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Status: Offline Points: 1131 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
with the price of the monarch UCC's, there is no question what is a better buy right now.
the optical quality of the monarchs is up there w/ the big boys.
good luck and let us know what you decide.
J |
|
jason miller
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/05/2007 Location: W Laf, IN Status: Offline Points: 229 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Alright, what about the BDC reticle? One more thing: How's the Prostaff? I konw where I can get one for around $125. Is the Monarch going to be $100 better than the Prostaff on a $260 gun? I know the Monarch is definitely a good buy right now, but I'm having trouble talking myself into a scope that costs almost as much as the cheap gun it's going to be on... Thanks again for any help.
|
|
Smokey53119
Optics Apprentice Joined: November/02/2005 Status: Offline Points: 165 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Monarch is better than the FullField II
FullField II is better than the Pro-Staff
Monarch = $50 more than FullField II
FullField II = $50 more than Pro-Staff
I would skip the Pro-Staff even if it was cheaper
|
|
Dolphin
Optics Master Joined: October/05/2006 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 1795 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
First, you have to look through the scopes yourself and decide what is adequate for you. But, personally, I would agree and skip the Prostaff. The Burris is made in the Phillipines. Good scope, I own two. It should be more than adequate for your purposes and only you can decide if the difference between it and the Monarch is worth 50 bucks. My opinion, I do not think you are going to miss a shot on a coyote because you chose the Burris. But, if you want better glass and a better scope, spend the extra 50 bucks.
|
|
Tip69
Optics Master Extraordinaire Tip Stick Joined: September/27/2005 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 4155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Jason,
I bought my son a Savage 11FL....... about the same "grade" as your Stevens... and I got a FFII to put on it. I wish I could have had the opportunity to wait until this Monarch sale because I would have preferred the Monarch hands down. The FFII is ok, but I notice some distortion at the edge!
Buy the Monarch NOW and you can always move it to another gun when you upgrade! |
|
take em!
|
|
jason miller
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/05/2007 Location: W Laf, IN Status: Offline Points: 229 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I went to a local sporting goods store yesterday and looked through all three scopes. I liked both Nikons better than the Burris. I couldn't tell any difference between the Monarch and the Prostaff. I didn't look for any distortion at the edges, but since the crosshairs are in the middle I didn't think it mattered what the edges looked like. The Prostaff looks like it will probably be great for anything I would throw at it. The only reason I would go for the Monarch right now is if I thought I would ever need a nicer/more rugged scope in the future for a different rifle. The only chance I see of that happening is if I inherit my Grandpa's .338 some day.(only grandson...) |
|
Smokey53119
Optics Apprentice Joined: November/02/2005 Status: Offline Points: 165 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Since you appear to indicate that the Pro-Staff fits your needs and is optically OK, you may wish to also consider the Bushnell Legend series. They are a bit lower cost than the Pro-Staff line, but include fully multi-coated lenses. Both have lifetime warranties. I find the Legends brighter and more clear than the Pro-Staff.
Another benefit of the Legend's is that they are longer than some other scopes and you will not need to use extension rings or bases on your Stevens 200. The Fullfield II cannot be mounted on a Stevens 200 without extension rings/bases, or a rail. I do not know the dimensions on the Pro-Staff so cannot comment on mounting them. |
|
jason miller
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/05/2007 Location: W Laf, IN Status: Offline Points: 229 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Alright, good deal. I'll definitely see if I can get a peek through one of those. I always thought of Bushnell as kind of cheap unless you moved up to the Elite series, so I haven't really looked into them much. I assume these Legends have equal weatherproofing to the Prostaffs? Thanks!
|
|
smitty
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/29/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 103 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Right now the Monarch 3-9x40 is $218. Thats an incredible scope at that price and it's a few notches above the Fullfield II which costs $200.
If that's a bit more than you want to spend then theres the Monarch 4x40 for $180 and the 6x42 for $189. I would take either of these over the Fullfield II 3-9x40.
OF the value priced scopes, the Monarch has the best glass and is the brightest in low light. Next in line is the Bushnell 4200 series but they cost more so the Monarch,to me at least, the the best value. Even Leupolds VXIII is not as bright as the the Monarch or 4200.
Smitty
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |